A
Title: The Effects of Bilingualism on First Language Acquisition: A Focus on Grammar Development in Early ChildhoodAuthor: Sarah Ashouri
Affiliation: Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch.
Corresponding Author Email: saraashouri1393@gmail.com
Abstract
A
This study searches on how early bilingualism affects young children's Farsi grammatical development. Thirty participants, ages four to five, were chosen from a Tehran kindergarten and split into two groups: fifteen children who spoke Farsi only and fifteen children who were exposed to Farsi and a heritage language (either Kurdish or Azeri) at the same time. A Sentence Repetition Task (SRT) and a picture-based grammar elicitation and picture story narration task were used to evaluate grammatical proficiency. A
Those tasks were created to focus on fundamental Farsi grammatical features, such as verb tense, agreement, word order, and the usage of subordinate clauses and others. Parental language background data were collected via a standardized questionnaire adapted from the Language Exposure Assessment Tool (LEAT). Results showed that monolingual children scored higher than bilingual peers on most assessments of grammar, particularly those examining complex sentence structure. However, the bilingual group demonstrated comparable performance on simpler constructions. These findings support previous research indicating that reduced or uneven exposure to the societal language can affect grammatical accuracy in bilingual children, without indicating a language delay or disorder. The study investigated the importance of considering linguistic background when evaluating early grammatical development.Keywords:
bilingualism
monolingual
grammar acquisition
sentence repetition
A
A
A
A
1. INTRODUCTION
Bilingualism – the transparent usage of two languages – is an increasingly popular global trend today, particularly among children who are exposed to several languages from birth or early childhood. As modern societies become more multilingual from migration, globalization, and intercultural communication, a large number of children are raised in bilingual or multilingual circumstance (Bialystok, 2001).
This transition to bilingualism has created new opportunities for scholars to investigate how dual language exposure impacts many areas around language development. Bilingual children have led to sufficient scholarly attention to how vocabulary is acquired, but how bilingualism affects grammatical development – especially in the first language (L1) – has been under-researched (Paradis, 2007; Meisel, 2007). Grammar is an important part of linguistic competence, as it shows the rules for sentence structure, verb usage, agreement and different syntactic and morphologic patterns for coherent and meaningful communication. For children who use a single language, the path of grammar development is well documented.
There are expected developmental milestones, and anticipated patterns are observable across languages. The texts are not as simple for bilinguals. The nature of learning two languages can provide children with linguistic systems that may take different paths of development and different paths of cross-linguistic influence, or delayed acquisition of grammatical structures, with many variables for comparison, such as language dominance and the frequency of use of each language (Paradis, 2010; De Houwer, 2009).
Numerous studies suggest that bilingual children can successfully acquire two grammatical systems, and especially when they receive rich and consistent input in both languages (De Houwer, 2009). Nevertheless, differences in grammatical proficiency between the two languages are the norm. One language may be developed more than the other or have indications of reducing complexity or delayed morphosyntactic development. In some instances, the first language may actually show signs of less development when most of the input and use shift toward the second language. This situation challenges the standard assumption (especially by linguists) that the first language is developed in a robust and independent manner in early bilinguals and raises important questions about how bilingualism relates to the mechanisms of grammatical development (Meisel, 2007).
A
The nature of these developments is important to know not just theoretically, but also practically–educators and speech-language pathologists (as well as policymakers) often need to call on their knowledge to make evidence-based decisions about assessing and helping bilingual children. Not understanding the normal range of variation in grammatical development or misinterpreting that variation as a deficit is imperative for educators as it may lead to poor educational placement or unnecessary intervention (Genesee et al., 2010). Particularly, practitioners need to be skilled in determining normal bilingual grammatical development from actual language impairments.In short, the goal in this paper is to investigate what conditions of early bilingualism can influence a child’s heritage language development in the domain of grammar. It reviews empirical work and theoretical approaches to the development of morphosyntax, with a focus on tense and agreement and the development of syntactic complexity. This critical review of research is an attempt to disentangle some of the factors that have been found to affect the development of L1 grammar in bilinguals, and to establish the role that bilingualism plays in the promotion, inhibition, or alteration of the L1 grammar.
The current study explores the grammatical skills of monolingual and bilingual 4- to 5-year-old Farsi-speaking children in Tehran, Iran. This study investigates the impact of bilingual input on the production of specific grammatical structures in Farsi by employing a controlled sentence repetition task, a picture-based elicitation task, and a picture story narration task. The findings aim to contribute to the growing body of literature on bilingual language acquisition and offer insights for improving language assessment practices in multilingual educational contexts. This inquiry was guided by the following question:
RQ. Does simultaneous bilingualism affect the grammatical development of a child’s first language compared to monolingual children?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical perspectives for bilingual grammatical development draw on many models. The idea of Universal Grammar (UG), proposed by Chomsky (1981), suggests that all human languages share universal principles—a kind of factory setting in our brains—and that bilingual children have access to an innate mental mechanism that enables them to acquire the grammatical systems of multiple languages. Studies grounded in UG have found no reason to assume that bilinguals are at a disadvantage when acquiring grammar; rather, bilinguals learn the grammatical rules of each language independently, with no reliance on one language over the other and no evidence of transfer (De Houwer, 2009; Hulk & Müller, 2000; Meisel, 2011). Bialystok (2001) believes alteration in cognitive mechanisms permits bilinguals to develop two grammars at once, and any delay in acquiring one language's grammar is a result of restricted exposure or language dominance not limitations of cognition (Unsworth, 2013; Nicoladis, 2012).
The Interactionist Approach is another important perspective on bilingualism, treating language acquisition primarily as a function of input and social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). This perspective identifies frequency as an especially important characteristic to determine the grammatical development of children. Interactionists view the input from all learning environments to contribute to students' grammar acquisition, and that input is dynamic and changes on a balance of exposure to each language. Bias in exposure can also dramatically alter the course of grammatical development (Place & Hoff, 2011; Hoff & Core, 2013).
Children who are exposed to one language more than another are likely to develop the grammatical knowledge of the former topic more quickly and in greater depth than the latter. Interactionists regard social interaction to also contribute to the ways in which children develop their grammatical structures as they learn. The characteristics of input from parents and caregivers, peers, and their own language, varies considerably and has an important role in bilingual input (Thordardottir, 2011; Paradis, 2010).
The Competition Model, in contrast, holds that bilingual children rely on the frequency and reliability of linguistic cues to decide which grammatical features to acquire. In effect, bilingual children draw on the frequency of exposure to the forms of grammatical system, thus a bilingual child's systems may differ substantially from one another if one of the languages is found to occur more often, because the majority of their grammatical development is in that form (MacWhinney, 2005; Hernández et al., 2019). For instance, if a child is exposed to English more than Spanish; therefore, that child's emergence of correctly performing English grammatical features will be quicker and more complex due to more repeated frequency of input on English. This model highlights the significance of the environment in producing the two languages a child is acquiring and establishes the role that language dominance will play regarding which language will develop more advanced grammatical properties (Gathercole & Thomas, 2009; Kupisch & van de Weijer, 2016).
2.1 LANGUAGE DOMINANCE AND GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCY
Language dominance provides important information for bilingual grammatical development. Bilingual children will need considerable development of grammatical proficiency, once they reach a level where their grammatical skills will be richer and faster developing in the dominant language, especially where additional morphosyntactic complexity is required such as verb tense or word order. Meisel (2007) noted that where a child is exposed to one language more than the other, the consistent more recurrently exposure might lead to more advanced grammatical structures in the stronger language and a delay or limited grammatical structures in less frequently exposed language. When there are differences in bilingual children growing up in a bilingual environment, researchers often consider if one of those languages is being dominant in their input whether in the home, educational context, or through peers.
Paradis (2010) looked at what happens to grammatical differences when children with unequal exposure to the two languages have been using both languages. The dominant language will often have been stronger in terms of how frequently they were exposed to one language. For example, a child growing up in a French, home (dominant language) and getting French input frequently would be considered stronger in French than English. If the child went to school and acquired English as a child, perhaps on-their own through peer relationships, the bilingual child would have a more sophisticated understanding of English grammar. In that process, this child may have delays acquiring more complex grammatical structures in French in terms of their use of language, since their home environment did not provide a consistent amount of linguistic exposure to a richer language use.
Considering children being bilingual, by the time they have acquired both languages they will have experienced variations of input across two languages and those variations may lead to differences in use of complex grammatical structures such as verb tense, aspect, and word order (i.e. placement of causative functions) in terms of a relative language weaker than the other (De Houwer, 2009). For example, a bilingual child who was exposed primarily to English, which has a simpler tense system, might then develop slower or less accurate understanding of the grammatical forms for tense and aspect in their weaker language (Russian). This could relate to the fact that their first language system (English), may not have the same grammar requirements which makes it impossible for them to fully acquire the more complex forms of the second language.
2.3 CODE-SWITCHING
A further component of bilingual grammar development can be code-switching, which bilinguals do often with ease, as they switch from one language to another in an utterance or in conversation. Although many people see code-switching as a language difficulty, many researchers consider it a natural language phenomenon describing a language user with high competence in both languages (Genesee, 2014). Paradis (2007) explains that code-switching can often occur when a bilingual uses what she can communicate in one language and switches to the other language, out of necessity, because she does not know the vocabulary or grammatical structures she needs in the first language (not the second!). For example, bilingual children might code-switch between languages within a single sentence to communicate more meaningfully, or because of the specific grammatical requirements of the situation.
Code-switching also demonstrate that interference, or transfer between languages, is also related to the bilingual child's grammatical development. Interference occurs when the bilingual child applies grammatical rules of one language to another language (for example they may under apply or over apply rules). Genesee (2014) found that the greatest interference occurred when bilingual children were still learning grammatical structures in two languages. Bilingual children might, for instance, make "errors" that combine the verb order of English (SVO) with the word order of a language with a different structure, like German (SOV); these mistakes do happen, but they usually go away as their grammatical proficiency in both languages grows.
3.3 RECENT STUDIES
Numerous studies have looked into how bilingual children pick up grammatical structures in both languages. Various studies have searched for how bilingual children are able to learn grammatical structures in both languages. It is found that monolingual language children, as compared to bilingual children, typically exhibit a delay in grammatical development, especially in the morphosyntactic domain (Paradis, 2007; Meisel, 2007), which includes verb morphology, tense marking, and subject-verb agreement that are frequently affected by these delays, especially in the language to which less exposure was given (Paradis, 2010).
It is an important point to note that these delays do not appear to be related to cognitive delays, but are largely due to input factors, such as the quantity and quality of language exposure in each language (Unsworth, 2016). Paradis (2010), for example, illustrated that bilingual children acquiring both English and French showed a higher rate of omissions of tense and agreement morphemes in English than monolingual English speaking children. These patterns were linked to their relative exposure to each language, rather than any underlying impairment.
Bilingual children may demonstrate delays or differ in their morphosyntactic ability as compared to monolingual peers, but the variability in ability is due to other characteristics (e.g., input amount, language dominance, distance between languages), not a general cognitive delayed in skills. Ultimately, bilinguals follow the same developmentally patterns as monolinguals; the only difference is that bilinguals generally follow a similar trajectory, but at a different rate or different paths due to exposure to two languages (Unsworth, 2016).
The findings point to the need for educators, clinicians, and policymakers to have a more nuanced well-informed understanding of the space and evidence based practices of rating a bilingual child's language development and the risk of misdiagnosing them, while also creating spaces to receive balanced input and rich language exposure. Future work to understand the interaction of the bilingual input and grammar acquisition will continue to improve the practice and the outcomes of the millions of bilingual learners across the globe.
Another significant finding is that bilingual children generally follow the same grammatical structure framework as monolinguals, albeit at a slower pace (De Houwer, 2009; Genesee, 2014). This highlights the understanding that bilingualism only influences the development of grammar when exposed to input. Furthermore, the type of delay may be influenced by the typology of the languages used in a higher level of acquisition. Children learning distantly related languages like Chinese and English may find it more difficult to transfer grammatical knowledge, while children learning languages like Spanish and Italian may find it easier. However, even children with delays can effectively catch up over time if they receive enough high-quality input in both languages (Meisel, 2011).
This evidence collectively contributes to dispelling the stigma of exposure to bilingualism being harmful or, at the very least, misleading to development. Instead, it proves reduced levels of grammatical acquisition is not a disorder and that the phenomena of bilingualism are contingent on factors such as language dominance, frequency of input, and typological relations between languages (Meisel, 2011). Therefore, bilingual grammatical development should be regarded not as lacking, but rather as one that is modulated by a myriad of linguistic and environmental influences. In conclusion, it has been observed that early bilingualism has a variety of positive effects on grammar development that are not disruptive.
Most of research has been done on the grammatical development of bilingual children. The grammatical development of these children has been compared to that of monolingual children. Bilingual children may exhibit delayed grammatical development in one or both of their languages, according to studies on bilinguals (Meisel, 2011).
These delays are typically attributed to reasons such as how little one of the languages has been exposed to, or other types of unbalanced input. These delays do not indicate a cognitive disadvantage in the developmental process, but they do illustrate the complexity of development, as a child must balance two different languages simultaneously. As the child becomes more balanced with both languages, over time, their grammatical development begins to seem to take off in both languages as well (De Houwer, 2009; Meisel, 2007).
The most comprehensive study conducted on bilingual language advancing properties by Paradis (2007), discussed the morphological enriching of bilingual children, found that bilingual children's grammatical competence was delayed relative to their monolingual peers in different areas of language advancing, mostly in areas of morphological markers such as in verb or subject-verb agreement, plural marking, and articles. That said, this developmental lag is likely to be short-lived, with the effects of experience and exposure to the second language generally resolving themselves. Paradis (2007) also pointed out the role of language dominance, whereby children who hear one language more than the other are likely to take advantage of their access to grammatical structures in the predominant language more quickly than they would in the weaker language.
Similarly, Meisel (2007) researched how bilingual children's grammar develops relative to their exposure to the languages they speak. He found bilingual children often have asymmetrical development, whereby one language is more rapidly acquired than the other, depending on the amount of input. For instance, children raised in contexts in which they encounter one language (English) largely at school and the other language (Turkish) occasionally at home may experience a delay, or limited, grammatical development in their weaker language, especially in regard to morphosyntax.
Studies have also shown that bilingual children start showing signs of cross-linguistic influence (transfer), in which the grammar of one language highlights the grammar of the other language, especially when the similarity across the two grammars is high. Paradis (2010) highlighted that bilingual children often grammar overgeneralizations—they learn rules from either language, especially when the overlap in the rules is high. For instance, a bilingual child applying the pluralization rule for English (add "-s") to a French word with a different pluralization rule (add "-x") speaks to the effort the child is making to combine the grammatical systems they are acquiring.
On the other hand, the work of Genesee (2014) suggests that grammatical development of bilingual children can be slower at points, but was not broken. The finding emphasizes that bilingualism did not inhibit overall grammatical ability, as bilingual children had a different development route from monolingual children's grammatical development. In addition, the usefulness of cognitive flexibility of bilingual children was proposed. The timing of access to their languages and the ability to negotiate two grammatical systems offered unique cognitive supports to bilingual children in forms of cognitive flexibility and approaches to problem solving that would develop grammatical proficiency over time.
All things considered, research indicates that cross-linguistic influence, language dominance, and input quantity all play a role in shaping bilingual grammatical development. Although some initial delays may occur, they are typically brief and reflect the inherent complexity of acquiring two languages simultaneously. The design of the current study is informed by these findings. The following section outlines the methodological approach used to examine these aspects of bilingual children's grammatical development.
3. METHOD
3.1 PARTICIPANTS
A total of thirty well developing children, ages four to five, were selected from Tehran's a private kindergarten for this study. According to their linguistic backgrounds, participants were divided into two equal groups:
Monolingual Group (n = 15)
From birth, children in this group were only exposed to Farsi, or Persian. The kindergartens they were chosen from were in Tehran's center and northern districts, where Farsi is the primary language of instruction and everyday communication. The fact that these kids were mostly exposed to Farsi at home and in school settings was supported by parent-reported data.
Bilingual Group (n = 15)
This group included individuals who had been exposed to Farsi plus a heritage language (Kurdish or Azeri) on a regular basis since birth or early toddlerhood.
A
In each instance, the original tongue was spoken at home with one or both parents or other family members, whereas Farsi was mostly spoken in public settings (such as kindergarten). A parent-completed Language Background Questionnaire, which was modified from the Language Exposure Assessment Tool (LEAT) (Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 2001), was used to confirm bilingual exposure. If a child received at least 30% of their weekly language input in their heritage language, they were classified as bilingual.According to their parents, all of the participants had normal language development and no history of sensory, neurological, or speech-language difficulties. Gender was balanced across groups (8 girls and 7 boys per group).
3.2 INSTRUMENTATION
Three core instruments were utilized to assess the children’s morphosyntactic development in Farsi:
1.
Sentence Repetition Task (SRT):
2.
A 12-item Farsi Sentence Repetition Task was designed based on validated sentence structures previously used in bilingual acquisition research (Paradis, 2010; Thordardottir, 2011). The items targeted key morphosyntactic structures in Farsi, including:
Subject–verb agreement
Past tense inflection
Word order (SOV)
Object clitics
Subordination
3.
Picture-Based Grammar Elicitation Task:This task included eight illustrated scenes depicting common child-relevant scenarios. Each image was intended to elicit spontaneous production of specific grammatical structures. Children were prompted with open-ended questions to describe the pictures. Targeted structures included:
Auxiliary use (e.g., داشت)
Case marking
Subject-verb agreement
Relativization and coordination
4. Parent Language Background Questionnaire:
A modified version of the LEAT and BiLEC (Bosch & Sebastián-Gallés, 2001; Unsworth, 2013) was administered to caregivers. It collected data on:
Age of initial exposure to each language
Estimated weekly input percentages
Family language practices
Child’s language preference
Educational language environment
3.2 PROCEDURE
Each child was tested individually in a quiet room within their kindergarten during mid-morning hours (9:00 AM–12:00 PM), a time conducive to attention and engagement. It was carried out by a qualified researcher with knowledge in language elicitation techniques for young children and who was a native Farsi speaker. To guarantee age-appropriate difficulty and clarity, all research instruments went through a piloting phase. The Sentence Repetition Task (SRT) had 20 items at first, but after pilot testing, the most linguistically complex and developmentally inappropriate sentences were eliminated, leaving 12 items. In a similar vein, pictures that were deemed unclear or that did not elicit the desired grammatical structures were either removed or replaced for the Picture-Based Grammar Elicitation Task and the Picture Story Narration Task. Twelve children (ages 4–5) who were not part of the final sample participated in the piloting process. In order to maximize the validity and reliability of the primary study, feedback from this phase guided modifications to the task design, instructions, and stimulus selection.
Phase 1: Warm-up (2–3 minutes):
The researcher started a brief, friendly conversation in Farsi to build rapport and reduce any anxiety. Topics included daily routines and favorite toys, helping the child feel comfortable in the one-on-one setting.
Phase 2: Structured Grammar Tasks (15–18 minutes):
SRT (~ 5–6 minutes): Children listened to 12 pre-recorded Farsi sentences and were asked to repeat them exactly. Prompts were delivered using a neutral, child-friendly tone. No feedback was given during the task. All responses were audio-recorded for transcription and later analysis.
Picture-Based Grammar Task (~ 6–7 minutes): Children were shown individual images on laminated A4 cards and prompted with questions such as “اینجا چی شده؟” (“What happened here?”). The goal was to elicit spontaneous utterances containing target grammatical structures.
Picture Story Narration (~ 4–5 minutes): For additional syntactic data, a five-frame picture sequence was used to elicit narrative skills. Children described the sequence of events in their own words.
Phase 3: Parent Questionnaire (Concurrent with child testing):
While the child was being tested, a caregiver completed the Language Background Questionnaire. This form, printed in Farsi, was typically self-administered, though the researcher was available to assist with clarifications.
4. RESULTS
This section presents the results of an experimental investigation into the development of morphology and syntax by Farsi-speaking children who have been monolingual and bilingual. There were 30 children participated in the experiment (15 monolinguals and 15 bilinguals (Azari-Farsi, and Kurdish-Farsi)), who were tested using the three grammar tasks as described Sentence Repetition Task (SRT), Grammar Elicitation Task, and the Picture Story Narration Task. Each task was designed to elicit specific contexts for grammatical structures among Farsi speakers.
4.1 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
In the Sentence Repetition Task massive difference was observed, which had a maximum score of 24. Bilingual participants scored 17.8 (SD = 1.9; or 74.2%), while monolingual participants gained a mean score of 21.6 (SD = 1.4; or 90% accuracy). Bilinguals scored 11.4 (71.3%) and monolinguals scored 13.9 out of 16 (86.9%) on the Grammar Elicitation Task.
Monolinguals children also outperformed on the Picture Story Narration Task. Monolinguals averaged 6.6 out of 8 (82.5%), whereas bilinguals averaged 5.1 out of 8 (63.8%). The average performance ratings for both groups on all grammar tasks are displayed in Table 1.
Task | Highest Points | Mean in Monolingual (SD) | Mean in Bilingual (SD) | Monolingual Percentage | Bilingual Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Repetition of Sentences | 24 | 21.6 (1.4) | 17.8 (1.9) | 90.0% | 74.2% |
Grammar Elicitation | 16 | 13.9 (1.2) | 11.4 (1.6) | 89.9% | 71.3% |
Narration of a Story | 8 | 6.6 (0.8) | 5.1 (1.0) | 82.5% | 71.3% |
The Sum | 42.1 (2.3) | 34.3 (2.9) | 87.7% | 71.5% |
A
Fig. 1
Comparison of Bilingual and Monolingual Children's Grammar Achievement
4.2 ANALYSIS OF STATISTICS
Independent samples t-tests were performed for every task to ensure that these differences were statistically significant, t the p < .05 level, every difference between the two groups was determined to be statistically significant:
- Sentence Repetition Task: t(28) = 5.92, p < .001
- Grammar Elicitation Task: t(28) = 4.23, p < .001
- Story Narration Task: t(28) = 3.76, p = .001
The total grammar score difference (mean difference = 7.8 ) also reached statistical significance (t(28) = 6.14, p < .001), which confirms that bilingual children, used fewer and less accurate grammatical structures than monolinguals.
4.3 INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
The results are consistent with prior research suggesting that while bilingualism does not inherently impede grammatical competence, it may delay the acquisition of certain structures due to reduced input in the societal language (Farsi in this context). As Paradis (2007) and Meisel (2007) have emphasized, limited or unequal exposure to the majority language can influence grammar structures accuracy in bilinguals. Moreover, the lower scores of bilingual children in tasks which requires coordinated structures suggest that complex syntax may be particularly sensitive to exposure frequency and language dominance. Despite these differences, it is important that bilingual children still demonstrated meaningful grammatical competence across all tasks, which indicates developmental delay rather than disorder.
5. CONCLUSION
This study explored the effects of bilingualism on Farsi grammatical development in early childhood, comparing 15 monolinguals and 15 bilinguals (Azari-Farsi and Kurdish-Farsi) children from a Tehran kindergarten. Using controlled tasks designed to elicit morphosyntactic structures—such as tense, subordination, and clitics—the results demonstrated that bilingual children, while grammatically competent, performed significantly lower than monolingual peers across all measures.
These findings align with prior research showing that bilingual children may exhibit slower grammatical development, particularly in the dominant societal language, due to divided exposure and reduced input quantity (Paradis, 2007; Meisel, 2011). However, such delays are generally transient and reflect environmental variation rather than cognitive or linguistic impairment (Unsworth, 2013). From a usage-based perspective, grammatical acquisition is input-sensitive, and frequency of structures in each language plays a major role (Tomasello, 2005). While Universal Grammar theories suggest shared innate syntactic mechanisms (Chomsky, 1981), observed variation in bilingual acquisition highlights the importance of input-driven learning processes.
This study reinforces the need to interpret bilingual children’s language development within the context of their linguistic environments. Educational and clinical evaluations must avoid mislabeling typical bilingual variation as a delay or disorder. Further longitudinal research is recommended to track developmental trajectories and the influence of input quality and quantity over time.
Declarations
Human Ethics and Consent to Participate
A
A
This study was conducted according to the ethical standards of Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch and the Declaration of Helsinki. A
All human study procedures were examined and approved by university Ethics Committee/IRB. A
Written informed consent was obtained from the parents or guardians of all participating children.Consent to Participate
A
Written informed consent from the parents or legal guardians of all the participants was obtained.A
Funding
Declaration
This research wasn't supported by any grant provided by a particular funding agency in the not-for-profit, commercial, or public sectors.
Appendix
Appendix A. Instrumentation
Persian Sentences with English Translations and Target Grammar Structures
Persian Sentence (فارسی) | English Translation | Target Grammar Structure |
|---|---|---|
پسر کوچولو توپ را انداخت. | The little boy threw the ball. | Past tense verb, SOV word order |
دختر داشت سیب میخورد. | The girl was eating an apple. | Past progressive (داشت + verb) |
مامان گفت که باید برویم خانه. | Mom said that we should go home. | Subordination, modal verb |
بچهها داشتند فوتبال بازی میکردند. | The children were playing football. | Plural subject, past progressive |
ماشینِ قرمز توی خیابون بود. | The red car was in the street. | Ezafe structure, prepositional phrase |
اون سگ رو که پرید دیدی؟ | Did you see the dog that jumped? | Relative clause, object fronting |
چرا شیرتو نخوردی؟ | Why didn’t you drink your milk? | Negation, question formation |
بچهها میخواستند با هم بازی کنند. | The children wanted to play together. | Modal verb, infinitive clause |
دختری که لباس صورتی داشت گریه میکرد. | The girl who wore pink was crying. | Relative clause, progressive |
پدرش اونو بوس کرد و رفت. | His father kissed him and left. | Clitic pronoun, past tense coordination |
علی گفت که دوستش مریض شده. | Ali said that his friend was sick. | Subordination, complex object |
وقتی رسیدیم، بارون میبارید. | When we arrived, it was raining. | Subordination, past progressive |
A2. Picture-Based Grammar Elicitation Task
Instructing the child
Tell me what possible events do you see in the picture below?
A3. Picture Story Narration Task
Instructions to child:
"Look at these pictures. Can you tell mewhat happened in this story?"
Target Structures:
Verb tenses (past and progressive)
Temporal sequencing
Clitic pronouns
Complex coordination and subordination
A4. Parent Language Background Questionnaire
Adapted from LEAT and BiLEC
Basic Information
How old is your child?
Where was your child born?
Which city/area do you live in?
At what age did your child start kindergarten?
Exposure to Language
1. Does your youngster hear any other languages at home?
Azeri Turkish ☐ Kurdish ☐ Farsi ☐ Other: ______
2. How much time does the child spend in each language each day?
o Farsi: ___%
Additional language: ___%
1.
3. With whom does your child converse in these languages? (for instance, parents, grandparents, etc.)
2.
4. Has your child spoken a language other than Farsi in kindergarten or school settings? If so, how many hours are there in a week?
3.
5. Which language does the youngster prefer?
4.
6. Has there ever been any reports of a problem with the child's speech or language
development?
Yes ☐ No
Appendix B: Scoring Rubrics and Coding Criteria
B1. Sentence Repetition Task (SRT) Scoring Rubric
Each sentence is scored on a 3-point scale based on grammatical accuracy and completeness:
Score | Description |
|---|---|
2 | Entire sentence repeated correctly with appropriate grammar. |
1 | Sentence partially correct; includes one or more grammatical errors or omissions that affect target structure. |
0 | Sentence repeated incorrectly or not repeated; target structure not produced. |
B2. Picture-Based Grammar Elicitation Task Scoring
For each target picture, one main sentence from the child is evaluated. Score as follows:
Score | Description |
|---|---|
2 | Correct production of intended structure (e.g., relative clause, progressive). |
1 | Attempt at structure, but with grammatical or morphological errors. |
0 | Structure absent or not attempted; unrelated or incorrect sentence. |
Notes:
Multiple responses may be coded, but the first relevant response is primary.
Errors in vocabulary do not affect the grammar score unless they change the structure.
B3. Picture Story Narration Scoring Criteria
Aspects Evaluated:
1.
Verb Tense Accuracy
2.
Temporal Cohesion (logical order of events)
3.
Subordination and Coordination Use
4.
Use of Clitics or Pronouns
Each aspect is scored individually using a 0–2 scale:
Score | Description |
|---|---|
2 | Correct use of grammatical structure throughout narration. |
1 | Inconsistent or partial use with errors. |
0 | Structure not present or used incorrectly. |
Total possible score per child
Up to 8 points
A
Author Contribution
S.A. wrote the entire manuscript and approved the final version.
A
Data Availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files.
References
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.
De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition (Vol. 2). Multilingual Matters.
Gathercole, V. C. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingual first-language development: Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(2), 213–237.
Genesee, F. (2014). Is early second language learning really better? Babylonia, 1(2014), 26–30.
Hernández, A. E., Claussenius-Kalman, H. L., Ronderos, J., & Graves, J. (2019). Bilingualism and the brain: A neurocognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(4), 722–738.
Hoff, E., & Core, C. (2013). Input and language development in bilingually developing children. Seminars in Speech and Language, 34(4), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1353448
Hulk, A., & Müller, N. (2000). Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3(3), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000353
Kupisch, T., & van de Weijer, J. (2016). The role of the childhood environment for language dominance: A study of adult simultaneous bilingual speakers of German and French. Lingua, 180, 164–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.007
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll, & de A. M. B. Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford University Press.
Meisel, J. M. (2007). The weaker language in early child bilingualism: Acquiring a first language as a second language? Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(3), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070270
Meisel, J. M. (2011). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge University Press.
Nicoladis, E. (2012). Cross-linguistic transfer in adjective–noun strings by preschool bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000161
Paradis, J. (2007). Early bilingual and multilingual acquisition. In P. Auer, & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (Vol. 5, pp. 15–44). De Gruyter Mouton.
Paradis, J. (2010). Bilingual children's acquisition of English verb morphology: Effects of language exposure, structure complexity, and task type. Language Learning, 60(3), 651–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00576.x
A
Paradis, J. (2010). The interface between bilingual development and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(2), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990373Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. B. (2010). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing Company.
Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2011). Properties of dual language exposure that influence two-year-olds’ bilingual proficiency. Child Development, 82(6), 1834–1849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01660.x
Thordardottir, E. (2011). The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(4), 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403202
Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Unsworth, S. (2013). Assessing the role of current and cumulative exposure in simultaneous bilingual acquisition: The case of Dutch gender. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000284
Unsworth, S. (2016). Quantity and quality of language input in bilingual language development. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(1), 25–46.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.